Other than for politicians who like to say they voted "against" sex and violence, and retailers and producers, do these laws have any effect to begin with on kids? I have seen opinions that it "desensitizes" kids to violence. But I've also read that access to porn has led to less sex crime. It kind of feels like violent games would reduce empathy in kids, but I'd be more interested in slashdot links to actual studies of behavior than political posturing and opinion about the ruling.

Experiment by Albert Bandura. Shows how kids will reproduce acts of violence they have witnessed.

A few notes:- This experiment features kids who have unsupervised access to visual depictions of violence. It's not clear if kids still act violent when an adult puts this violence into context for them.- The experiment does not seem to say much about the long-term effects of exposure to violence.- Kids will imitate almost any behavior they observe in others, violence is

Aside from the question of how effective the law (almost certainly wouldn't) have been in terms of changing minors' access to the games it applied to(see the complete absence of minors with access to cigarettes, under-21s with access to booze, and people generally with access to schedule 1 drugs...) there seem to be two 'schools' of result, depending on how researchers approach the question:

In individual-scale studies, people often demonstrate that subjects primed with violent video games are somewhat more likely to act-out violent behaviors, answer ambiguous prompts with the more, rather than less, violent possibility, etc.

In population-scale statistical work, of the 'epidemiological' style, the results usually seem to be that video games, presumably by providing an extremely easy and attractive(and generally quite cheap, too) timesink for the idle and troublesome youngish males who handle most of society's grunt-level violence, appear to reduce the levels of violence sufficiently intense to show up in crime statistics.

I'd recommend trying to sound less angry, it's dangerously close to being ironic under the circumstances. You might also wish to reconsider the conclusion you drew from my narrowly worded assertion:

When you 'prime' somebody with a violent video game stimulus, in the sense of 'prime' that they use in the psych studies that provide us valuable insights about how undergrads who want $10 for beer think, you can observe an uptick, in the short term, of appearances of violence themes in free-play exercises, vi

I'd be more interested in slashdot links to actual studies of behavior

The supreme court ruling refers to articles on both those points. They stated that in California, 20% of retailers will sell violent games to children, which compares to the 18% of liquor stores that sell alcohol to minors. The justices also commented on various studies, basically concluding that they are all very subject and totally inconclusive. The actual opinions are full of interesting facts.

Does this DECISION have any effect either? The industry already self-censors, so what practical impact does it really have. It isn't going to make it any easier to get a AO rated game made, published, or sold. It isn't going to make it any easier for a kid to buy a M-rated game (since most retailers won't sell them to a kid anyway). It has no real-world impact at all. I suspect the court only did it so they could *look* like they were championing free speech (after a year of ultra-conservative decisions tha

Why does the Supreme Court treat violent video games differently? Its a double standard...blah blah They acknowledged that and said why in their ruling. They pointed out that not just in American history but in western society leading up to American, we have always done so. Our oldest fairy tails and even our Bible stories depict rather graphic violence even though they are intended for presentation to children. Meanwhile we have always restricted the presentation of sexual images, when not presented in away that society broadly recognizes as high art.

They said all this in their ruling, maybe these people should try reading it and then respond.

>... Bible stories depict rather graphic violence even though they are intended for presentation to children. Meanwhile we have always restricted the presentation of sexual images,

You really haven't read the Bible, have you?

The Song of Solomon is a pretty good bit of literary erotica.

--
BMO

Incestuous erotic literature at that:

9 You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride;
you have stolen my heart
with one glance of your eyes,
with one jewel of your necklace.
10 How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride!
How much more pleasing is your love than wine,
and the fragrance of your perfume
more than any spice!
11 Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride;
milk and honey are under your tongue.

Yeah and they don't usually teach The Song of Salomon to kids in church... but stories of violence like the story of David and Goliath where David Bashes Goliath's head with a stone then decapitates him are favorites for children. Furthermore The Song of Solomon would be considered art.

I have not read the "Song of Solomon" recently and I don't have it handy but If my recollection is at all correct its mostly euphemism. Quite titillating, yes if you have any experience with acts alluded to, but not exactly graphic if you don't. The depictions of violence on the other hand tend to be quite specific, and might even be characterized as technical.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

The "bible" as it stands today wasn't the "bible" of the Jews. There were history scrolls and religious scrolls.. but no "big black book" (or scroll if you prefer) to say... "there it is! teach them that!"

The old testament (stuff we now convey as the old testament) is a colleciton of anecdotes and stories to teach lessons. The context about ancient hebrew traditions and societal norms were specific to the hebrew people of the time. The concept of "stoning a woman" (people like to bring up about the Bible i

Interestingly enough I attended a talk by a few well know authors who were talking about themes in old folk tails and fairy tails which they'd come across while researching old stories.One striking thing was that there tended to be a lot more sexual references.A lot of disney stories are older ones with the violence toned down and the sex stripped away entirely.

Given that, until comparatively recently, the population-level western standard of living often didn't include enough dwelling space to necessarily separate the humans from the livestock, much less the existing children from the production of siblings, 'protecting' children from sexual material would have been pretty tricky(though, at the same time, willingness to use fairly coercive means to attempt to control sexual behavior was quite high)...

Which is a fine argument and a legitimate response to the decisions. Saying we should not do something just because of tradition is different than saying I don't understand why we do then when the court has just told you its by tradition.

The Supreme Court has long taken the view that not only should it keep consistent in the technical sense, as to its interpretations but also in the character sense, at least until that character no longer reflects the general character of the public.

The thing newspapers keep missing is that there is already a voluntary rating system out there, which all game retailers adhere to. Console makers have already banned Adults Only games from their consoles, and violent M games are kept away from kids by retailers already. By most tests, the system is more effective than the Movie rating system at keeping kids away from M (R) rated content.

So really, the court didn't rule that you can't have a ban. The court ruled that to overcome the first amendment challenge, California had to prove significant interest in a government-enforced ban above and beyond the already in-place industry ban. Since the California law was only going to add legal confusion to an already working voluntary system, the supremes ruled against them.

Exactly, the need for legislation is not required because the industry is so meek, so paranoid of bad publicity that stores ask for ID even when it is not required and will take "controversial" games off shelves. It's not like legislation would have any teeth either for non-commercial games - mods, flash content etc. where the more extreme stuff is likely to be found anyway.

There is also lack of clear evidence that rules restricting the sale of tobacco, alcohol, and porn to minors is making a difference. For that matter, the closest analogue is probably R-rated movies, and there isn't any evidence that restricting those at the theatre is useful, either.

You miss the double standard - retailers don't face any punishment if they sell an NR or R rated movie to a minor, so why should they face punishment for selling an M rated video game to a minor? An NR (or uncut) movie probably would get an AO rating by the MPAA (effectively either pornographic or have graphic violence that is beyond what even the MPAA allows), but they still sell them in retail stores.

Also, as I've pointed out all along - buying a video game and going to see a movie is not an apples-to-app

"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"

To call it the 'court's' double standard seems rather unfair. The justices specifically noted that it was rather odd how American tastes in media, past and present, were highly permissive of violence, even for fairly young children; but much less permissive of sexual material. However, in keeping with their job description, they couldn't really do much about that. 'Miller-test obscenity', while pretty unsatisfactory in a number of respects, is one of the few ways to successfully exempt something from First Amendment protections. For reasons having to do with American culture in the past, continuing into the present, that one doesn't mention violence.

Perhaps more importantly, the court argued that the law was attempting to enforce an (unconstitutional) double standard by imposing special restrictions on violent media that happened to be video games, restrictions that were not imposed on violence in other media: had the law flipped out at violence per se, as people often do about sexual content, regardless of medium(except for stuff old enough to have a gloss of cultural respectability, which is why 120 Days of Sodom is on the shelves and Playboy behind the counter, wrapped in plastic...), it would have at least had a shot at getting some Miller-esque test carved out for it. Since it specifically targeted video games, it was quite arguably an attempt to legally silence one specific class of speakers, rather than a specific perfidious topic(which might not have necessarily succeeded; but would have had a better chance...)

The court, for the most part, was just repeating back to us an observation on our own standards.

Fuzzyfuzzyfungus got it exactly right. The Supreme Court basically ruled that video games are to be afforded the same protections as books, movies, TV shows, music and works of art, because video games are a legitimate form of creative expression (seriously, play the original Deus Ex and tell me that doesn't qualify.) California can't discriminate against violent video games because California also can't discriminate against violent books, TV shows, movies, paintings and what have you.

To call it the 'court's' double standard seems rather unfair. The justices specifically noted that it was rather odd how American tastes in media, past and present, were highly permissive of violence, even for fairly young children; but much less permissive of sexual material

Sure they could have. They can rule according to the Constitution. There's nothing in the Constitution about community standards. They have chosen to give community standards more weight than our Constitution. That's entirely thei

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the theory of 'obscenity' as somehow being a nebulously different and unprotected class of activity.

However, speaking empirically about what the court actually does, and what people stand for it doing, things that were invented from whole cloth sufficiently long ago are called "precedent" and taken seriously, and asserting in some vaguely plausible way that a work satisfies the Miller test is, in fact, a successful way to exempt something from First Amendment protections

Don't worry, we aren't actually prudes, just really hypocritical about it. We prefer the fiction that broadcast TV is 'family friendly'("Next up on the Fear and Violence channel: 'Photogenic white girl missing, could your family be the next one torn apart ?' and 'Terrifying health hazards of foods and chemicals not manufactured by our sponsors'"); but the good stuff is waiting right behind the counter...

... violence. Raw violence, controlled violence, channeled violence... it's all the same. "Competition", that poster boy of capitalism, is really nothing more than a highly channeled and almost symbolic form of violence. Competition is all about putting your figurative foot to the other guy's figurative throat and squeezing until he cries uncle, right? Would somebody please explain how that is really so much different than the caveman version of that scenario, where it's actual feet and necks in play ra

Those two activities are a helluva lot more comparable than you think, in terms of mental process and state of mind. Given basketball players who have no more emotional bond or regard for their opponents* than players of GTA do for theirs, those two activities are equally violent upstairs, at least in terms of what the players would like to do to each other.

* Examples? I dunno... perhaps Islamic jihadists versus American corporate CEOs? If two groups of people can completely subhumanize each other - and

Sex is usually obvious to identify. What actual "damage" sex does to minors is still a bit of a mystery to me. I recall as early as 5 finding girls to be "interesting" and being quite curious about the differences. This is considered normal and healthy for kids. Oddly enough, the interest and curiosity never stopped. And we also know that when something is denied to someone, it just makes them want it all the more. What's more, I also recall my first experiences with alcohol -- I was also quite young and guess what? I hated it! I didn't learn to like it until my early 20s. I can't say they same would be true for sexual experiences for kids because I have no experience to relate, but there seems to be some indication that "protecting children" from exposure to sexual information is probably more damaging emotionally and psychologically.

Violence is really subjective... easy to identify, but we have to approve the cause or justification first. Recall that people weren't upset that yet another war game was created, but that there was a depiction of a playable present-day "enemy" where the player attacks US soldiers. (There would have been no commotion if the game was only about US soldiers attacking the Taliban.) It's not the violence itself that we seek to limit, it's the thinking behind the violence we seek to limit. Of course, we can't say what we actually mean because then it is clear and obvious that what we think or feel on the subject is pretty anti-american ideal-wise.

So instead of admitting that to ourselves and everyone around us, we just say "ban violence! (with the following exceptions: [insert list of things I approve of])"

It is certainly true that a good many Sims players were quick to discover all the various tricks for making their little virtual dolls miserable and/or killing them, just as most games of SimCity inolved building a city big enough to be worth sending an earthquake through... People even managed to derive amusement from abuse and neglect of Tamaguchi, and those things were about as engaging as an LCD watch. Human nature will out, certainly, it just doesn't seem to hurt the sale of 'casual' and more or less n

If something is found unconstitutional and people keep attempting to push the exact same laws over and over, they should be personally fined for the amount of the cost to the system if again found unconstitutional.

On the other side of the coin does the same hold true for people petitioning the courts to overturn laws they view as unconstitutional? Should we have started giving fines to women's suffrage activists? Civil rights activists?

Fines are not the answer. The correct answer is to just not re-elect those people.

Two members of the Supreme Court did say that a more precisely defined law could pass Constitutional muster. This is an open invitation for politicians to try again. This is how our legal system works.

The brain has a different response to hearing the word 'free' than it does to the word 'kill' but they are both protected under free speech. Just because one evokes a different emotional response does not mean that they need different rules.

even though most game developers are breathing a sigh of relief, many would like to see the industry shift toward something more creative and meaningful than violence.

Regardless of whether the "many" in that sentence are the developers or the 3rd part observers, these "many" have an opportunity to either develop other types of games themselves or to patron different types of games. The benefit of for-profit art, just as the the benefit of for-profit anything is that they have to strive to keep pleasing their customers.

they are about expressing and releasing violent and sexual energies that have no other outlet. much of violent and sexual impulses cannot be released in socially acceptable ways. so on some basic level, this is why violent and sexual media are so successful: they fill a need

it has always been my assertion that violent and sexual media doesn't CREATE inappropriate violent and sexual real life behavior, but instead serves as a form of releasing what is already there. in other words, those who oppose violent and sexual media are working on an inaccurate model of human psychology: we are not empty vessels that are corrupted. we are vessels already, naturally, innately, full of violent and sexual impulses. and we need a way to release them harmlessly, lest they be released harmfully. so violent and sexual media DECREASE real world inappropriate violence and sexxual behavior in my view

of course, videogames don't HAVE to be violent or sexual

but what i am saying, psychologically, is that the most successful videogames will always be violent or sexual. that's the most important need they fill

Homo sapiens are an intelligent species. However, we use our intelligence to satisfy our primal needs rather than abstract ourselves from it. I still haven't decided if this is good or bad to maintain a cohesive civilization for generations to come. If the answer is "no", humanity may find itself using its intelligence for societal destruction and not simply entertainment...yet again.

I feel it is up to a parent to choose what is best for his/her child. By the standards that some politicians are choosing my son (when younger) would have limited to "age level" reading only, when he was capable of reading adult books. (Note: One of his parents always read every book before he was allowed to read it, as we felt it was our responsibility.) My son is an adult now, but I felt and still feel it is the parent's decision for their child as they grow. Each child is different. Some children ca

I would actually have liked to see certain computer games restricted to adult sale only. The average gamer is apparently now 37 years old so why should companies not be able to produce games that are aimed exclusively at adults? If a parent wants to show let their kid play Doom or whatever then let them but force the parent to make the choice by purchasing it for them.

By allowing certain games to be restricted to adults we may get more games that were produced exclusively for adults. Some of them might be q

"Gamasutra reminds us that even though most game developers are breathing a sigh of relief, many would like to see the industry shift toward something more creative and meaningful than violence."
When I come home after a full day of dealing with idiots I like to blow off some steam by killing people (on my computer of course:-) I don't consider COD Black Ops an especialy violent game. I do my best to keep this away from my daughter so I have to wait till she goes to bed to play. If the industry self regul

Why it's not Ok to show sexual images (people loving each other) but it's alright to show people killing each other to kids. To me this is a basic problem in the way our society views "objectionable" material. When I was in high school, teachers could show movies that were rated R for violence but not for love scenes... I think the video game makers can make whatever they want, I just don't want the 19 year old cashier at gamestop selling GTA 27 to my kid when he's 14-15 and out with his friends. So again..

"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"

a possible answer is: violence tends to lower the demographic pressure, sex to increase it. With limited Earth resources, this is still "think of the children" but on a longer run.</sarcasm>

Clearly you've never read the bible. Endless killing of people of other religions is "OK" even encouraged by God. On the other hand, extreme societal control of what goes on in "private" bedrooms is mandatory.

Huh? There are a few broad guidelines about homosexuality, masturbation, and some OCD dont-touch-menstrual-blood stuff in Leviticus, but there's tons of polygamy, concubinage, rape, and incest that's treated as an unremarkable part of the scenery throughout the old testament..

If you think that modern Christians don't go back to the OT for Rules and Regulations, you don't know actual Christians, just their textbook. They're rather fond of the Ten Commandments (most of which I get behind as well), but many of them find plenty of specific things in (for example) Leviticus that they consider Still Enforceable.

Some. Go on, try it. Some Christians. There are literally thousands of sects of Christianity, all believing something slightly different. Painting them all with the brush of, say, the Westboro "Baptists" is a huge, sweeping, unfounded generalization.

I'm sorry, but that's just not how it works. The Bible isn't just a single body of work, it's a collection of history and laws spread out across thousands of years, detailing God's word, etc. Things change over time. Prophecies are fulfilled, promises are met.

Look at it this way: when the God of the Universe himself comes down and says "Hey, all that stuff I told you before has been taken care of. now all I want you to do is to love Me and each other, and to spread the word." that tends to change one's outl

The Bible isn't just a single body of work, it's a collection of stories and anecdotes spread out across thousands of years, before being written down by many diferent people, supposedly detailing God's word, etc. and then translated by an english king, in order to slip in his own desired revisions.

There. Fixed that for you.

Context can only twist the meaning so much. When the bible says that we should stone a woman to death because she was raped, I think the message is pretty clear. How does the context change that? Two men or women in love with each other, are also to be stoned to death? Not the caring, compassionate God that I personally want to blindly obey without questioning. In fact, that's the reason that fundamentalists of ANY religion scare the shit out of me. Love your fellow man, sur

If "the Old Testament, as it stands, is now a history book that we can learn from, not a body of law that we are to strictly follow" then why do people keep quoting it while claiming that we are violating God's laws? If the Old Testament is not binding law, then why is it quoted to say that homosexuality is wrong? Why is it quoted to say same-sex marriage is an abomination? Why is it quoted to say that sex before marriage is wrong? The Ten Commandments? etc. It would see that you are still "picking

If "the Old Testament, as it stands, is now a history book that we can learn from, not a body of law that we are to strictly follow" then why do people keep quoting it while claiming that we are violating God's laws?

Because extremists will use any form of failed logic to prop up their viewpoints.

If the Old Testament is not binding law, then why is it quoted to say that homosexuality is wrong? Why is it quoted to say same-sex marriage is an abomination? Why is it quoted to say that sex before marriage is wro

Two men or women in love with each other, are also to be stoned to death?

Don't be silly. I just read the Leviticus passage, and I tell you surely: It's just the men that have sex with other men! Clearly, even the Lord has a soft spot for lesbians....or is just obsessed with making rules about cock as a method of ensuring that dick jokes would be funny until the end of days.

Either the bible is a body of laws to follow in which you must follow it all, or the bible is not a body of laws to follow in which don't follow the laws in it.

I fail to see the requirement for imposing the inability of different people to interpret a work of literature differently. I suppose that you've read the Bible yourself and interpreted it to say that "every word [of it] is immutable truth," and that all others must agree with only this viewpoint?

It's one thing to "pick and choose" what you find convenient, but quite frankly I find the combination of "pursuit of happiness" and "love thy neighbor" to mean that legislating against or denying marriage of sam

Context can only twist the meaning so much. When the bible says that we should stone a woman to death because she was raped

John 8, 1-11

1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

The quote provided of Matthew 5:18 was spoken by none other than Jesus himself. Later in the book, Mark 7:9-13 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their children according to the teachings in Leviticus. Christians are explicitly told by Jesus to kill their children for cursing them. So, essentially none of your points are backed up by the Bible.

Depends on what you call "extreme societal control", I suppose. The OT had rather harsh punishments for pretty silly things, but that doesn't automatically mean there's actual control. But it could be that I'm thinking more in terms of governmental control instead of societal control. But societal control sounds weird to me, because society itself is rather uncontrollable.

No. That still counts. And gays are still evil and must be persecuted. But it's OK to shave (contrary to Leviticus 19.27). And to wear blended fabrics.

See, Jesus really said that only the parts of the bible that are convenient to our goals of oppressing people who are not like us are valid. I know that's not actually in the bible, but it's true. Honest. The rest of the bible can be disposed of, which is good because bacon tastes good.

There's a lot of different interpretations possible for that support. He clearly had no problem violating a lot of the Jewish rules at that time, including gathering food at the sabbath, which was explicitly forbidden in Exodus. He also said that while he didn't come to change or abolish the law, he did come to fulfill it. What that means exactly is anyone's guess, but unless he was a flaming hypocrite in that one regard, he probably didn't mean that the law would remain as binding as it had been in the pas

Good luck getting some followers, then! I'm sure they will value your words above any other. Similarly, any follower of Jesus will value his words above those of the (rather heavily edited, any credible scholar will admit) OT. It doesn't automatically mean that the OT is wrong, but the NT does put the OT in a completely different light. As it should, according to the words of Jesus.

Although I find the double standard for violence vs. sex disappointing (especially being more of a fan of the latter than the former), I'd rather have a double standard than for them to deny them both the full protection of the First Amendment. And the existence of double standards can sometimes be used to leverage equal treatment in the long run (see the civil rights movements, for examples).

Oh please! While you will ALWAYS have a few racist asshats I bet you'll find the majority are just like me and don't give a damn what color he is, we care that he is a lying asshole and a shitty president! Just about every. single. promise. he made on the trail he pulled a 180 on when he walked through the door. get us out of the two wars? nope in fact he started a third! get us out of Gitmo? nope. Warrantless wiretapping? All for it now. The Bush era abuse of authority? Now he says that the office of the president has the right to assassinate Americans on American soil [salon.com] and that this "right" can't even be revoked by congress! hell even Nixon didn't have the balls to pull that shit!

As for TFA it reminds me of a saying I heard years ago (I think it was old Joe Bob Briggs) that went "In America you can't show a tit unless it has a knife in it". For some reason we here in the states have never had a problem with mass slaughter but heaven forbid little Billy knows where his penis goes. Personally I wasn't hung up about any subject when it came to my boys but that was because I actually talked to them and encouraged them to ask questions. Both boys played violent video games if they wanted but after showing how games were actually constructed I wasn't worried about them mistaking reality for GTA. Of course this had the humorous side effect of my oldest having strange "cursing" when playing, such as "You call this level design? I've seen mods with better layouts! And who wrote the AI scripts? Barney? This is awful!"

Sadly picking up my boys from their friends houses on occasion I saw why America is fucked. I saw homes where not a single book resided and where the kids were NEVER read to (while others read kid stories or worse nothing at all my boys got "best Sci Fi of 1975" just like I got when I was a kid) and where the ONLY interaction they got was a few words before the parents went to their idiot box and the kid sat down in front of his. But no matter how many stupid laws you pass (and I agree with SCOTUS you can't have movie access be voluntary and games not, that is discrimination based on format) you ultimately can't have the government raise the kids. Sooner or later the people in the home, that is the PARENTS actually have to get off their collective asses and interact with the child.

Maybe that whole "have to have a license to have a kid" thing isn't such a bad idea. What I saw from watching my boys grow up is there are a hell of a lot of folks out there that are simply letting the boxes raise their kids and don't know shit about their kids, what they are doing, what they are playing/watching, etc. Be it the decline of the west, the fact that so many are single parent households now, that everyone is too tired from working shitty jobs, whatever, there just seems to be a lot of folks out there expecting the government to do their job because they refuse to. But you can't babyproof the planet and you can't send social workers to teach little Billy in his home what is what because the parents are too busy watching their reality TV.